Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 01 June 2006 10:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Diane Thomason Saw this today http://www.workplacelaw....lay.php?resource_id=7127 Have a look at the discussion below the article.... very interesting opposite views. ... so, is this bonkers-conkers elfnsafety or "sensible safety"?!
Admin  
#2 Posted : 01 June 2006 10:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By gham If your managment team manage health and safety this sort of thing would go away. It's called being sensible or reasonable. The report only says that the injuries where tea related not specifically as a result of making tea. It is concerning that a local authority/council needs to get in a consultant to advise on slips trips and falls and manual handling. ahhhh the media, now you know what it's like being chased by the pap's
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.